CGHSFOA Accounting Conference May 19, 2017

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Supervisor’s Core: Fiscal Essentials Version 2.0 July 2009.
Advertisements

Homeless Assistance in Ohio Changes in the 2012 Consolidated Plan.
National Innovations in CWS Funding: What’s Working? Michael Lawler Co-Director, Center for Public Policy Research and Director, The Center for Human Services.
 Census Data  Non-Census Data  State per-pupil expenditures  Amount appropriated  Hold-harmless guarantee  School Improvement allocations.
Sequestration How Does it Work. Passed the Congress in August 2011 Established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction It’s the Law! P.L
 Provide overview of the block grant statute requiring planning councils  Provide overview of statutory responsibilities of planning councils  Describe.
0 FY14 State Budget Discussion EEC Board Meeting May 13, 2013.
 Estimates of the influx of newly-covered individuals in California by 2014: ◦ range from 1.5 to 2 million new Medi-Cal beneficiaries ◦ over 3 million.
CCDF Presentation September 9, CCDF: CCDF Budget Development The CCDF award is based on the federal fiscal year beginning October 1 st and ending.
W-2 Program – Procurement for 2013 Scope of Work, Required Systems and Monitoring Janice Peters, Director Bureau of Working Families.
1 1 DSHS | Planning, Performance and Accountability ● Research and Data Analysis Division ● FEBRUARY 2011 Substance Abuse Treatment Opportunities for Health.
Overview of Federal and State Welfare Programs April 24, 2008.
Major Health Issues The Affordable Healthcare Act.
Welfare Programs Today’s readings: Schiller Ch 13, Welfare Programs House Ways and Means Committee 2004 Green Book,
Older Americans Act Reauthorization 2011 Julie Jarvis Director, Program Development and Planning Karen Webb Manager of Older Americans Act Programs June.
Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and FinancingColorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Colorado Department of Health Care Policy.
Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and FinancingColorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Colorado Department of Health Care Policy.
Overview of the National Housing Trust Fund June 3, 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
1 Disaster Recovery Division Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
FY 2012 Budget Update Policy and Fiscal Committee July 25, 2011.
FY 2005 Indigent Care Trust Fund Disproportionate Share Hospital Program Presented to House Appropriations Health Subcommittee June 23, 2005.
1 DHS BUDGET PRESENTATION TO MICHIGAN CHILD CARE TASK FORCE March 3, 2010 Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor Ismael Ahmed, DHS Director Jane Schultz, DHS Budget.
1 Department of Human Services (DHS) Board Meeting Presentation Revised Lynn Vellinga, CFO August 24, 2011.
Virginia Department for the Aging Area Plan Financial Section Training FY2006.
Initiative 601: Experience and Context Presentation to the House Finance Committee by the Office of Financial Management Victor Moore, Director Irv Lefberg,
FY12 Budget and Caseload Update Fiscal Committee December 5, 2011.
1 Commissioners Timothy F. Hagan Jimmy Dimora Peter Lawson Jones Employment & Family Services Community Forum February 22, 2010.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Public Services Funding March 2012 Community Development Block Grant Program.
Keeping Budgetary Commitments to the Poor? Texas and the Welfare Block Grant, Eva De Luna Castro, Budget and Policy Analyst, CPPP
Introduction The following chapter will review: –Overview –Model assumptions –The Cost Proposal & Evaluation –Payments methodology –Financial Incentives/Disincentives.
The Federal Funding Outlook: A Colorado State Budget Perspective Presentation to the Colorado Counties Inc. Summer Conference Amanda Bickel Chief Legislative.
What We Will Discuss Social Services Realignment What programs were Realigned How the funding is structured Assessment for Social Services Challenges.
State of Ohio Early Intervention Fiscal Initiative Cohort I State Application Presentation.
Charter School Finance School Business Alexis Schauss, Director October 2015.
FY12 Budget and Caseload Update Fiscal Committee January 9, 2012.
Cost of Rural Homelessness: Rural Permanent Supportive Housing Cost Analysis MHSA Small County TA Call September 15, 2010.
Understanding the Title I Program. Renee Palakovic Director of Planning Division of Consolidated Planning & Monitoring (615)
Federal Grant Programs September 13, Grants-in-aid Federal grants are funds from the national government to state and local governments to help.
A Look at the New Basic Education Funding Formula
Federal Grant Programs
Division of Child Welfare
Congress Considers Major Medicaid Changes
2015 Annual Report February 9, 2016 Presenters:
U S A QUESTION 1-10 The number of people living in poverty in the United States decreased from 2009 to 2011.
Social Welfare Policymaking
FY13 Budget and Caseload Update Fiscal Committee October 1, 2012
Overview of Income Redistribution Programs
Child Support Trends Including 2002 Data Vicki Turetsky
Federal Grant Programs
Virginia Department for the Aging
Chapter 18: Social Safety Nets
EOPS and CARE Allocation Formulas in and Beyond CCC Confer March 22, :30-3:30 Listen over your computer Or…. Call , Passcode.
SCHIP: States Looking Forward to Reauthorization
SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING OVERVIEW House Ways and Means Committee
Career, Technical and Adult Education Finances
Social Welfare Policymaking
FY12 Budget and Caseload Update Fiscal Committee February 6, 2012
January 2018 County Human Services Legislative Breakfast
Older American Act Amendments of 2006
The Colorado Children’s Caucus April 9, 2018 Stephanie Villafuerte
NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2016 Grants
Allocations and Calculations in ESSA
Property Tax Levy – Taxes Payable 2019
New York State Education Department Rate Setting Update
Retirement Information
DFP Allocations: Understanding My Award Amount
Board work session – Saturday, January 21, 2017
Anti-Poverty Effect of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
General Appropriations Act July 2019
Commonwealth of Virginia
Presentation transcript:

CGHSFOA Accounting Conference May 19, 2017 State Allocations CGHSFOA Accounting Conference May 19, 2017

The Principal Allocations Child Welfare Allocation Core Services Allocation Colorado Works (TANF) Allocation Child Care Assistance Program Allocation County Administration Allocation Adult Protective Services Allocation

Allocation Committees Two Committees are created in Statute Child Welfare Allocation Committee Child Welfare Services and Core Services Allocations Works Allocation Committee (TANF/Colorado Works) Other allocations are the responsibility of the CDHS Executive Director Operated through the PAC/Sub-PAC structure County Admin, APS, Child Care

Child Welfare Allocation Committee Works Allocation Committee Two separate committees created in statute with the same structure for membership Eleven Members on each Committee Eight members from Counties One from each (CCI) Region (5 Regions) Three from the CCI Large County Caucus (22 Counties) County with the largest caseload must be represented Three members from CDHS Executive level person Program expert Financial/Budget expert

Child Welfare Services Allocation

Child Welfare Allocation The allocation methodology is still under review for SFY – 2017-18 as of the date of the CGHSFOA Conference.

Core Services Allocation

Core Services Allocation The committee – CWAC Statutes are somewhat ambiguous about CWAC role Determination was made by the CDHS Executive Director to use CWAC as a group of advisory stakeholders for CORE allocations Allocation Model – Historical Prior to SFY-13, the Core Services Allocation was based on the original amounts awarded to counties at the inception of the program, in the early 1990’s, plus additional allocations made at several points in time when additional funding became available.

Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current The first step in the annual allocation identifies the individual county amounts and the statewide total for Enhanced Funding for Evidence-Based Services and BOS Mental Health/Substance Abuse services. (preserve historical dollar amounts) The remaining appropriation is then split between the Ten Large Counties and the Balance-of-State Counties.

Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current The amount awarded to each county in SFY-12 for Evidence-Based Enhanced Funding Services, was allocated, in the same amounts, for SFY-16 The amount awarded to each Balance-of-State county in SFY-12 for Substance Abuse Services and Mental Health Services was allocated to each Balance-of-State county for SFY-16.

Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current Beginning with SFY-13, the remaining appropriation was divided between the Ten-Large Counties (~73%) and the Balance-Of-State Counties (~27%) in the same proportion as had resulted in SFY-12 FOR SFY-14, the proportion of the total appropriation was adjusted to 75% for the Ten Large Counties and 25% for the Balance –of-State Counties Currently, the split is approximately 78% for the Ten Large Counties and 22% for the Balance-of-State counties

Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current: The remaining appropriated funds are divided between the Ten Large Counties, and the Balance-of-State Counties to follow two separate operations. In each of the TLC and BOS operations, the county allocations are based upon the following five cost driver categories A) Households Below 200% of Poverty 45% --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B) Referrals (2.75%) (actually, 5% of remaining 55%) C) Assessments (5.5%) (actually, 10% of remaining 55%) 55% D) Involvements (44%) (actually 80% of remaining 55%) E) Out-Of-Home Placements (2.75%) (actually, 5% of remaining 55%)

Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current Each county’s allocation from the five Cost Driver Categories is compared to a “Floor” equal to: 90% for the Ten Large Counties (10% floor) 85% for the Balance-of-State Counties (15% floor) of the SFY-15 allocation or $25,000, whichever is larger.

Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current Weights are applied to preliminary allocation results for counties designated by CDPHE as “Rural” (110%) and Frontier” (115%) The application of the Floor and the Weighting for Rural and Frontier Counties requires that all county allocation calculations from the model be adjusted to “true-down” to the available funding. The resulting calculations for each of the five Cost Driver Categories are added to the dollar-amount calculations (above) to arrive at each county’s preliminary allocation

County Administration Allocation

County Admin Allocation Utilizes the framework of a Workload Study done by Deloitte in 2007 Activity-Based Costing (ABC) Methodology Structure of Primary Activities to represent workloads Average number of minutes to complete each activity Uses data from CBMS – number of activities, by County Examples: Completed application intakes, Failed Interactive Interviews, Redeterminations completed, Denials/Discontinuations issued, Inter-county transfers Also uses county-reported data regarding EBT activities Allocates funds appropriated to CDHS and HCPF

County Admin Allocation Allocation Model Data from CBMS and County EBT data to count quantities of activities completed, by County Multiply count of each activity times the minutes it takes from the Workload Study Sum each counties total “minutes”; convert to percent of State total minutes Each county is allocated the percent of available appropriation If the above does not calculate at least $105,329 for a County, that County’s allocation is elevated to that number (Base Allocation)

County Admin Allocation County Admin Allocation at Close-Out Surplus Distribution – unspent allocations are moved to overspent counties Federal Pass-thru – acts as an increase to allocation Any remaining county deficits are eligible for federal pass thru. Federal Revenue earned based on statewide expenditures (but not covered within appropriations) increases allocation available.

Adult Protective Services Allocation

Adult Protective Services Allocation Formula developed by a Task Group formed under the Finance Sub-PAC - Spring of 2013 Initial allocation followed County Admin method SFY-2014-15 was the first year of an independent formula SFY-2017-18 recommendations adopted by PAC earlier in May

Adult Protective Services Allocation 10 Large Counties Workload Data 50% of Allocation Data extracted from the CAPS system “Case-Days” - - Sum of number of days each case is open in CAPS Demographic Data 50% of Allocation Data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau) Population 55 years and older and under 300% FPL

Adult Protective Services Allocation Balance of State Counties tend to have greater fluctuations with demographic and caseload data Higher Demographics tend to mitigate fluctuations

Adult Protective Services Allocation Balance of State Counties Workload Data 55% of Allocation Data extracted from the CAPS system “Case-Days” - - Sum of number of days each case is open in CAPS Demographic Data 45% of Allocation Data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau) Population 55 years and older and under 300% FPL

Adult Protective Services Allocation Two Segments of funding – Administration and Client Services Both segments use the same basic formula. For The Administrative Allocation: 5% floor - County allocation cannot decrease more than 5% from year-to-year No minimum allocation for APS Admin Client Services Allocation follows the same demographic and caseload weightings as the Administrative Allocations: No Allocation Floor $2,000 minimum base for all Counties

Adult Protective Services Allocation Closeout of the client services funding is “vertical” Essentially, a Surplus Distribution between counties Unspent Client Services funding statewide is reverted Close out of APS Administration is “vertical” Surplus Distribution between counties Unspent APS Administration funding will be added to County Admin surplus distribution

Colorado Works (TANF) Allocation

Colorado Works Allocation The Committee – Works Allocation Committee The $150 million Colorado Works Block Grant appropriation is divided into six Cost Driver Factors (four demographic factors and two expenditure factors) and are weighted for their relative significance. The data to be used in calculating each of the six factors is to be the most recent available data.

Colorado Works Allocation Allocation Formula Demographic Factors 50% of the total formula, divided evenly between the four factors: represent the population most likely to participate A) Child Poverty Population (12.5%) B) # of Children Enrolled in SNAP (12.5%) C) # of Children Enrolled in SNAP Whose Family Income is below 50% of the Fed Poverty Limit (12.5%) D) # of Children enrolled in Medicaid/CHP# (12.5%)

Colorado Works Allocation Allocation Formula Expenditure Factors 50% of the total formula Represent the economics of county expenditures A) County Expenditures in the Previous SFY on Basic Cash Assistance (BCA) and State Diversion (30%) B) County Expenditures in the Previous SFY on All Other Colorado Works Block Grant Activities (20%)

Colorado Works Allocation Allocation Formula Counties who expended greater than 70.9% of their total Colorado Works expenditures in the previous SFY on Basic Cash Assistance and State Diversion are awarded the greater of the amount calculated or a minimum allocation of 140% of the amount they spent on BCA and State Diversion. Counties are held to a maximum decrease of 5% from their prior year allocation and to a maximum increase of 25% over their prior year allocation (unless increase is driven by BCA calculation, above) Counties with allocations less than $100,000 are kept from any allocation reduction.

Child Care Assistance Program Allocation

Child Care Allocation The allocation methodology is still under review for SFY – 2017-18 as of the date of the CGHSFOA Conference.

Other Funding Child Welfare Collaborative Management (“1451”) Allocations to participating counties Option to retain General Fund savings Employment First Title XX Training Chafee Independent Living Promoting Safe and Stable Families Single Entry Point Contracts SafeCare HCPF – Medicaid Outreach and Development Grants Project or Goal-Oriented Grants Child Support Services – retained collections and incentives Recoveries – retained collections and incentives Other County-based funding

State-based data systems are used for producing data that drives allocations. Accurate and complete data recording is essential !!!